# Infractions Visible



## Butterfree (Jan 2, 2013)

Members can now see a little red or yellow card in the bottom-right corner of any post that has been infracted or warned. This is to make it more open and transparent when people get infracted, so that members can see what kind of behaviour is unacceptable even when mods haven't publicly replied to say so.

If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to post here.


----------



## yiran (Jan 3, 2013)

What if the post has been edited so that the infracted part is removed? Wouldn't this indication be inaccurate then?


----------



## Datura (Jan 3, 2013)

i dare you to infract me

edit: _double dog dare_


----------



## ultraviolet (Jan 3, 2013)

yiran said:


> What if the post has been edited so that the infracted part is removed? Wouldn't this indication be inaccurate then?


that's not how it works! it's not part of the text in the post, it's a little rectangle in the postbit, usually if you hover over it it'll say 'user was infracted for this post' or something. you can't edit them out.


----------



## Murkrow (Jan 3, 2013)

ultraviolet said:


> that's not how it works! it's not part of the text in the post, it's a little rectangle in the postbit, usually if you hover over it it'll say 'user was infracted for this post' or something. you can't edit them out.


I think he meant if the part of the post that caused it to get an infraction were edited out.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jan 3, 2013)

Photo Finish said:


> I think he meant if the part of the post that caused it to get an infraction were edited out.


... well it's gonna show who edited it anyway. It's not like people are going to think you've gotten an infraction for no reason just because you edit the wrong thing out. i would like to give our members a little more credit than that!


----------



## Datura (Jan 3, 2013)

feature request: ability to report blatant mod abuse >:(

how about no


----------



## yiran (Jan 3, 2013)

ultraviolet said:


> ... well it's gonna show who edited it anyway. It's not like people are going to think you've gotten an infraction for no reason just because you edit the wrong thing out. i would like to give our members a little more credit than that!


No, I mean, for instance, if a post offended someone and was infracted and was edited out, the actual thing that caused the infraction wouldn't be there. I'm not trying to question the integrity of the members, but infracted posts can be edited without malicious intent.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jan 3, 2013)

yiran said:


> No, I mean, for instance, if a post offended someone and was infracted and was edited out, the actual thing that caused the infraction wouldn't be there. I'm not trying to question the integrity of the members, but infracted posts can be edited without malicious intent.


well it's not exactly going to change anything? people are still going to see you were infracted for the post, and if they can see a post was edited they're going to know if you edited something out anyway and probably assume you said something you shouldn't have. I'm pretty sure people will be able to catch onto that. it's not just to make an example of which posts we don't think are appropriate: it also lets users know when their reports are being acted on, too.

to be honest it doesn't really happen that often.


----------



## Negrek (Jan 3, 2013)

Excellent! Now I can stop editing stupid stuff into the posts I infract. (Although I have to admit I am infinitely more entertained by the way that MSPA Forums marks infractions...)

Can ordinary members click the infraction icon for more information, or only mods? If they cant, would it be possible to make the title attribute of the infraction icon the infraction reason? That way if people were confused as to why a post had been infracted, they could at least get some indication by hovering over the marker.


----------



## Spoon (Jan 3, 2013)

What's the difference between red and yellow boxes? Severity?


----------



## Negrek (Jan 3, 2013)

Yellow is warning (not worth actual points towards a ban); red is infraction.


----------



## Zhorken (Jan 3, 2013)

Oh huh they actually are cards.  They're broken in Bachuru style :(


----------



## Butterfree (Jan 3, 2013)

Negrek said:


> Can ordinary members click the infraction icon for more information, or only mods? If they cant, would it be possible to make the title attribute of the infraction icon the infraction reason? That way if people were confused as to why a post had been infracted, they could at least get some indication by hovering over the marker.


They can technically click it, but right now it will bring up a no permission message. It would probably be easier to let them view it than to add the title attribute, but either way would require mucking about with the code some more. I might later if I get around to it.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Jan 4, 2013)

the lack of date makes the whole shows-edits thing a lot less indicative, mind.


----------



## yiran (Jan 4, 2013)

ultraviolet said:


> well it's not exactly going to change anything? people are still going to see you were infracted for the post, and if they can see a post was edited they're going to know if you edited something out anyway and probably assume you said something you shouldn't have. I'm pretty sure people will be able to catch onto that. it's not just to make an example of which posts we don't think are appropriate: it also lets users know when their reports are being acted on, too.
> 
> to be honest it doesn't really happen that often.


You're assuming the edit is to hide that they were infracted for the post.

Okay, let me state this clearer. For instance, I was infracted for a post that may have caused people to feel uncomfortable. I edited that part out (with permission from the moderator that infracted me) in order to prevent further offense to any possible readers. However, with this system, the post will still have an infraction, and as the infraction has been edited out, normal users may be confused by the post, seeing it doesn't have the infraction-worthy part in it but it is still marked as being infracted.


----------



## Adriane (Jan 4, 2013)

yiran said:


> You're assuming the edit is to hide that they were infracted for the post.
> 
> Okay, let me state this clearer. For instance, I was infracted for a post that may have caused people to feel uncomfortable. I edited that part out (with permission from the moderator that infracted me) in order to prevent further offense to any possible readers. However, with this system, the post will still have an infraction, and as the infraction has been edited out, normal users may be confused by the post, seeing it doesn't have the infraction-worthy part in it but it is still marked as being infracted.


But the post will still be _visibly edited. _That's what uv is saying.


----------



## ultraviolet (Jan 5, 2013)

yiran said:


> You're assuming the edit is to hide that they were infracted for the post.


No I am not! I'm saying that if you edit something out, the forums automatically tack on '_last edited by yiran at 14:45_' or something so everybody is going to know that you've edited something out, and if you have an infraction for seemingly no reason, they're probably going to assume you edited out what you were infracted for!

It's such a non-issue that I don't even know why you're bothering.

edit: and really if you've been infracted for something really offensive in your posts, we (mods) are probably likely to edit it out anyway.


----------



## 1. Luftballon (Jan 5, 2013)

having an edit on a post with an infraction makes the presence of said infraction insuf indic, though, since it's difficult to distinguish edit before infraction, edit after infraction unaffects relevance, edit after infraction renders infraction nonindicative, so ??

I mean, I guess it's strictly at least as meaningful as not having had the infraction sign in the first place but

(wish for that edit-incapable could see post history? ... would not risk soul)


----------



## nothing to see here (Apr 8, 2013)

I think what people are saying about edited posts (and what a lot of the other replies somehow seem to be missing somehow) is that they can't see what it was the post was infracted for anymore, so they aren't able to use the infracted posts as a "this is what not to do" sort of thing...



> This is to make it more open and transparent when people get infracted, so that members can see what kind of behaviour is unacceptable even when mods haven't publicly replied to say so.


...like the original post here said the feature was for.

People will know that a post was edited, but not what was removed... so when the offensive part gets edited out, the infraction tag becomes a mostly useless "look, somebody got in trouble!" mark rather than a way for people to get a clearer idea of what kind of stuff isn't allowed in posts.

If the infractions being visible is intended to be used as a guideline for members to know what isn't okay to post by seeing what other people got infractions for, there needs to be some way for others to see what the infraction was for even if the poster (or a mod) went back and edited out the offensive part afterward.


----------



## ultraviolet (Apr 8, 2013)

If we do edit an offensive post, it's usually because it contains something triggering without a content warning, or a fast-moving/flashy gif that isn't under a hide tag (in which case we're likely to just add whatever's needed). 

I mean, it's not exactly a secret what kind of posts are considered inappropriate - that's what the rules are for. Visible infractions are still useful for posts that aren't offensive, but are infracted for some other reason (like spam), and it also lets users know when their reports are or aren't being acted on, since there's no confirmation of that or anything.

I get what you're saying, but isn't it kind of common sense? If you can see that a post has been edited and infracted, and you can access the rules, _and _you have the context of the thread... would it be that hard to deduce what the problem was? I think generally when people do edit their posts after being infracted for saying something bad, it's out of genuine desire to not upset any more people, and I don't really take issue with that. People tend to not edit their posts after being infracted anyway, from what I can see.


----------

